Patna High Court
Mahesh DasversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Mahesh Das applied for bail in a case registered as Madhepura P.S. No.633 of 2024, wherein he was accused under IPC Sections 363, 366(A) and 34 for allegedly kidnapping the minor daughter of an informant. The prosecution alleged that Das, along with others, abducted the girl, while the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. asserted that she left home of her own volition, married the petitioner, and was not kidnapped. The State opposed bail, highlighting the petitioner’s five prior criminal cases and raising concerns about the victim’s age assessment under the Juvenile Justice Act. The Court examined the voluntary nature of the victim’s statement, the absence of any allegation of sexual assault, and the procedural issues concerning age verification, and concluded that the evidence did not substantiate a continued denial of bail. Consequently, the Court ordered the petitioner’s release on bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and directed him to remain present in the trial court until charge‑framing.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite allegations of kidnapping a minor under IPC Sections 363, 366(A) and 34.
- Whether the victim’s voluntary statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the question of her age assessment under the Juvenile Justice Act affect the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 363, 366A
- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act — s. 94
Subjects
- bail
- kidnapping
- minor
- consent
- IPC
- CrPC
- Juvenile Justice Act
- age assessment
- sureties
- trial court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85812 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-633 Year-2024 Thana- MADHEPURA District- Madhepura
======================================================
Mahesh Das, S/o Late Suresh Das, Resident of Sattugali, Singheshwar, P.S.-
Singheshwar, District- Madhepura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
6 09-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with Madhepura P.S. Case No. 633 of 2024 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 363, 366(A)/34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the
petitioner along with others has kidnapped the minor daughter
of the informant.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has
committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this
case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
during course of investigation, the victim was recovered and she
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85812 of 2025(6) dt.09-04-2026
2/4
has given her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
wherein she has stated that she has gone out of her house on her
own will to Murliganj with petitioner and they have performed
court marriage in Madhepura. She has categorically stated that
no one has kidnapped her. She herself has gone with the
petitioner. It has further been submitted that the statement of the
victim goes to show that she herself has went out of her house
and no one has kidnapped. Petitioner is languishing in judicial
custody since 01.07.2025.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State and learned
counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the
application for bail and have submitted that petitioner is having
criminal antecedent of five cases. Learned counsel for the
informant has stated that vide order dated 20.06.2024, the victim
was handed over to the parents but she was subsequently
kidnapped by the petitioner and others and for that, he has filed
another case as well. Learned counsel for the informant has
further submitted that from perusal of the order of the learned
trial Court, it will transpire that the victim has once been handed
over to the parents and on next day, she was handed over to the
in-laws. In this regard, a report was called from the learned trial
Court. Learned trial Court has reported that from perusal of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85812 of 2025(6) dt.09-04-2026
3/4
order sheet dated 20.06.2024, the age of the victim was assessed
approx 17 years by the learned Judicial Magistrate who took the
statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and
accordingly, the victim was handed over to the parents and on
next date, on a receipt of the Singheshwar Temple Nyaas Samiti
and copy of Aadhar Card, she was handed over to the in-laws. In
this regard, it is worth mentioning that assessment of the age of
the victim has not to be made on such superficial considerations.
Time and again, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down a law
regarding assessment of the victim which is as per Section 94
of the J.J.B. Act. Releasing of the victim in favour of parents or
in-laws is a very serious issue and trial court should not venture
in assessing the age on such superficial considerations as the age
assessed by Judicial Magistrate or a certificate issued by any
trust cannot be a document of age.
6. Be it as may be, it is admitted position that now the
victim is with her in-laws and from perusal of her statement
under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., it is clear that she herself has
gone with the petitioner. She has not alleged any kind of sexual
assault against her by the petitioner.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85812 of 2025(6) dt.09-04-2026
4/4
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named
petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M.,
Madhepura in connection with Madhepura P.S. Case No. 633 of
2024.
8. The petitioner is directed to remain physically
present in the trial Court till framing of charge.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
lata/-
U T
Checking your session…